Our Latest Attempt to Elicit Accountability from Fluoridation-Defending Brampton Mayor, Linda Jeffrey

Dear Mayor Jeffrey,

Caverta: caverta works in the same way as other pills do. pharmacy australia cialis This causes the veins of the penis to absorb a greater amount of blood, upon which the muscles become more comprehensive. viagra canada shipping There is a two pronged approach to providing treatment for this particular disorder as soon as you get to know usa generic viagra about it. If there is a disruption in any of these three processes, 50mg viagra sale there might be problems in achieving an erection.

I patiently await your reply to my queries of June 29th, July 26th, August 11th and August 29th.

Also, since you did not attend my September 8th delegation to Peel Council (it is attached, and you may view the video here), please be advised of the following information, which has also been brought to the attention of Dr. de Villa, the Regional Clerk, the Region’s Health Commissioner, the Region’s legal advisor, the CAO, the Regional Chair and the Region’s water plant operator, via email:

There are no toxicology studies for the Region’s fluoridation chemical, toxic waste HFSA.  For years, and most recently at a fluoridation committee meeting, Regional Staff have advised Councillors that that there is no need for toxicological studies on toxic waste HFSA, because it dissociates (breaks down) 100% in drinking water and therefore residents come into contact with the resulting individual toxins but not HFSA specifically.  And since the individual toxins are all within allowed limits, Regional Staff claim that there are no safety issues with artificial water fluoridation.

This assertion is not supported by the scientific literature, including the 2006 Finney (Michigan) study cited by Staff (for example, in the attached 2014 memo from Ms. Smith and Dr. David Mowat to Councillor Sprovieri, copied to Regional Chair Kolb and Mr. O’Connor).

The 2006 Finney study, attached, used a higher-than-pharmaceutical grade HFSA (while the Region uses industrial grade HFSA – toxic waste from the smokestacks of the phosphate fertilizer industry) and high purity deionized water devoid of impurities, “Nanopure water” (while our municipal tap water is full of impurities).

As you can see, the study does not remotely reflect fluoridation in the Region of Peel, as was pointed out at a recent Committee meeting to Dr. de Villa by Councillor Sprovieri.

It has aslo been demonstrated that:

  • dissociation depends on a number of factors such as temperature, presence of other substances (metal cations), water hardness and most importantly pH, as shown in the Michigan study, and
  • re-association may occur under acidic pH conditions (see Urbansky, 2002 and Morris, 2004), for example in our gut or in acidic beverages such as tea or coffee prepared using fluoridated water, and
  • Mullenix, in 2014, stressed the potential generation of “decomposition products with toxicity greater than that of the original compounds”: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4090869/pdf/oeh-20-02-157.pdf

Further, allowed limits of water contaminants do not ensure safety, rather they take into account the difficulty & expense in keeping toxins at levels that are completely safe.

The many contaminants of industrial toxic waste HFSA (the Region’s fluoridation chemical) include arsenic & lead:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/20130705121108426.pdf

An MCLG (Maximum Contaminant Level Goal) is the maximum level in drinking water at which no known or anticipated adverse human health effects would occur. The EPA’s MCLG for arsenic & lead is ZERO: https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/table-regulated-drinking-water-contaminants

World Health Organization: “There is no known level of lead exposure that is considered safe.” http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs379/en/

Health Canada: “Because arsenic can cause cancer, every effort should be made to keep arsenic levels in drinking water as low as possible“. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/environ/arsenic-eng.php

Mullenix, in 2014, stressed the possibility of synergistic effects between various contaminants fostering an underestimation of health risks:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4090869/pdf/oeh-20-02-157.pdf

Some studies show lead uptake in blood using HFSA: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Roger-Masters-Bibliography-Publications-on-Silicofluorides.pdf

Dr. Hardy Limeback, fluoride toxicity expert, recently retired full professor, head of Preventive Dentistry at University of Toronto for 18 years, and co-author of the NRC’s highly regarded 2006 review of fluoride in drinking water, has advised that the NRC report showed that stage II skeletal fluorosis can occur in someone consuming 2.86 L of Peel’s fluoridated water per day, and that “a baby only has to drink an average day’s worth of 0.75 L of 0.7 ppm infant formula made with Peel tap water and it would have a very high probability of getting dental fluorosis.”


Please advise what you plan to do about this grievous situation.

Best wishes,
Christine Massey
Brampton

Fluoride Free Peel

2 Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *